We changed our privacy policy. Read more.
34

Hard determinism does not entail that your love is a chemical reaction in your brain. Hard determinism is roughly the view that : For every event, E2, there is another event, E1, that precedes E2 and is causally sufficient for E2. If dualism were true, hard determinism could still be true even though E1 and E2 were purely mental, with no physical ...


8

If hard determinism is correct then there is no other option so "true" love would be defined as you having the moments you've had and experiencing the corresponding chemical response that you have.


7

Different schools of thought within the philosophy of mind would answer your question differently. I will try to describe the answer that each position implies, based on the information from the two links you provided. The various positions with regards to the mind-body problem are richer and more diverse than the 4 I describe below (In each case I refer you ...


7

The usual question is whether free will is possible under hard determinism. However, love, particularly romantic love as conceived in the western culture, certainly is not construed as an act of free will. In the popular imagination, it is an involuntary response to someone's qualities. So in fact, quite the opposite, the concept of a predestined love that ...


6

In his "Lecture on Ethics" Wittgenstein makes some similar points about wonder and miracles, first defining miracles: Let me first consider, again, our first experience of wondering at the existence of the world and let me describe it in a slightly different way; we all know what in ordinary life would be called a miracle. It obviously is simply an event ...


6

This answer is almost entirely opinion, if it will be permitted. Whose morals, whose ethics, whose values do you believe should be passed down to children, taught to them? Should the government just decide what people should believe because it saves on propaganda? The discussed situation is not justifiable unless you allow any means to justify an end and, ...


6

Love is a word we have created for an experience or a set of emotions related to something or someone. It is just a word to describe the experience of this cocktail of emotions. The word in itself does not in any way disqualify if this experience is in any sense voluntary or predetermined from birth or learned from society or upbringing or maybe even ...


5

Even animals care for their young ones (their feelings and emotions also). This is an already-installed quality in most living things. Haven't you seen mother birds hatching their eggs? Will they hatch if no care is given? ...Bees caring their larvae? Are they all necessary to maintain the equilibrium of nature? What would happen if no care (for feelings ...


5

It's hard to find spot-on literature. This is connected with what you are interested in : BEHAVIORIST THOUGHT EXPERIMENT Possibly if we had absolute control over food, sex, shelter, if we had some great reconditioning laboratory where the individual could be brought for a year for rigorous study and experimentation, we might be able to undo ...


5

Consider Plato's idea for how (Guardian) children ought to be raised in the kallipolis and all the objections Socrates' interlocutors find with it. Without a nuclear family, Plato thinks children develop familial attachments to their fellow citizens instead, binding individuals to each other and the state in new ways. The myth of the metals serves not only ...


4

Jobermark's answer is very well considered. If I might add a few points : Historically, philosophers have often admired rational, logical thought over emotion. This may be an error. It is very difficult to disentangle the emotional and rational aspects of decision making. With respect to the general functioning of mind, it may be impossible to have one (...


4

This line of thought has a rich tradition in philosophy. One potential way to gain empirical evidence one way or another is through the famous Turing Test, which challenges a computer to successfully imitate the perceptible output of human thought processes effectively enough that a human being would be unable to tell the difference. To the extent that a ...


4

The question was made famous by Machiavelli's Prince, where he also provided the answer: "The answer is that one would like to be both one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both... So, on this question of being loved or feared, I conclude that since some men love as they ...


4

If enlightenment had such a meaning, all the enlightened persons would sit in some corner without doing anything. But enlightened persons realize the truth about this material world. Many enlightened persons work hard even after their enlightenment without caring about their body. They are supposed that they have transcended the limitations of their body ...


4

There could be difficulty in finding precise comments by both Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas on 'boredom', as generally conceived as "being weary due to being unoccupied or lacking interest in one's current activity." However, this does not mean that we cannot infer what their thoughts could have been concerning boredom from what it is that they have ...


3

This is essentially what happened to Archimedes when he shouted "Eureka!". Archimedes is stuck on a problem, he can't think of a solution (rational). So he has a bath to relax (emotive) and this leads to a (rational) solution which he would otherwise have missed. This part of it is fine. But you should be very careful not to stretch the analogy too far: I ...


3

You are talking not about science but the faith of determinism. In the deterministic mindset, everything is made up merely of the physical interaction of objects, which can be subjected to experiments, which will definitively show how they behave and why. The true statement should be, the physical world can be approximated to rules that consistently are ...


3

SCIENCE AND THE AESTHETIC ATTITUDE ARE DIFFERENT ... In aesthetic contemplation one considers an object - a natural object or an artefact - in detachment from all practical or explanatory motivations or attitudes. The object may be regarded purely as a presentation or an exercise in symbolism, or as embodying certain techniques. The response may be an ...


3

Since Machiavelli has quite naturally come up (se sia meglio esser temuti piuttosto che amati) let's develop his line of thought. Machiavelli does not address this question in isolation but in the context of his concept of human nature informed as usual by reflection on Roman history and the Medici. Human nature is also depraved and short sighted. 'As is ...


3

We could but it would not be beneficial for the species First of all, empathy and other social functions exists among other mammals (dogs, wolves, horses, all kind of apes etc ...) . Why have they developed ? Simply, group is stronger than the sum of individuals. Five lonely wolves have lesser chance to survive than five wolves in a pack. With humans this ...


2

The idea that emotions are opposed to reason is an Enlightenment dogma; see for example Stephen Toulmin's 1992 Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (2500 'citations'):     The principle elements, or timbers, of the Modern Framework divide into two groups, reflecting this initial division of Nature from Humanity. We may formulate the dozen or so basic ...


2

No, I don't think it is wise to see emotions and intelligence as algorithms. It certainly isn't the traditional way to think about the world of human experience. One reason to think of algorithims is that one can do things with them. Crucially this aspect is missing from intelligence seen as algorithmic. One can certainly simulate certain kinds of ...


2

Yes. Source: personal experience. I have alexythemia, so I can tell you exactly what human consciousness without complex emotions is like. I have emotions, but often do not experience them. Since the only instrument that I have to gauge with is the very one I am trying to evaluate, I have no other frame of reference. To me, this feels "normal". I know it ...


2

From a computational standpoint, emotions represent global state that influences a lot of other processing. Hormones etc. are basically just implementation. A sentient or sapient computer certainly could experience emotions, if it was structured in such a way as to have such global states affecting its thinking. Simulating emotions would apply to simpler ...


2

In Germany the psychologist Dietrich Doerner some decades ago has set out to incorporate emotions and feelings into artificial beings. See Doerner, Dietrich: Bauplan fuer eine Seele. (1998) (In German) and Doerner, Dietrich et al.: Die Mechanik des Seelenwages (2002) (In German) Doerner has also developed a corresponding computer program named PSI, see ...


2

Keep in mind that genes are causally related to phenomena occurring in many levels at the same time: molecular, cellular, systemic, individual, social, even environmental. The interplay of all these different levels is not without attrition. More often than not, the existence of a particular trait cannot be reduced to a single explanatory principle. Your ...


2

One place to start would actually be Aristotle. Aristotle discusses fear and bravery in Nicomachean Ethics BKs I, II, and III. The main gist is that bravery is an appropriate response to feelings of fear that stands between rashness and cowardice and applies specifically in two contexts: battle politics because according to Aristotle these are the ...


2

What you are describing is the philosophy of the Stoics, a group of philosophers from Ancient Greece, and later Rome, whose central idea was that the main purpose in life was to live with dignity. They held that life was full of tragedies and misfortune, and humans had no control over their fate. The only real choice a person had was in how they faced life's ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible